Search knowledge base

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool searches a local Markdown knowledge base and requires a license feature, which is useful operational context. However, it does not describe result format, pagination, or any search behavior details, so the description provides moderate additive value beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, grammatically concise sentence that front-loads the main action and includes the key prerequisite (license requirement) in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple search tool with two straightforward parameters, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It names the resource and purpose, and the license prerequisite is noted. It could mention what the results look like (e.g., case titles) but this is not critical given the low complexity and well-understood search semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema fully describes both parameters: query is 'Search query (required)' and limit is 'Max results to return'. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The tool description itself does not add any additional semantic detail about the parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search the local Markdown knowledge base for previous cases'. It uses a specific verb ('search'), identifies the resource ('local Markdown knowledge base'), and the purpose ('previous cases'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hana_search_tables (which searches tables) and hana_read_kb_case (which reads a specific case).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by specifying the tool is for searching the knowledge base and mentions a prerequisite (requires knowledge-base license feature). It implies when to use this tool (when searching for prior cases) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context without explicit alternative guidance, warranting a 4.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.